I'm curious how they are going to do it as well. A ruling on the constitutionality of a future attempt of the UN to make a new treaty? An executive order calling people to give up arms during a 'national emergency' kind of like the other ones Obama has been so fond of lately? There has been a nonstop effort to shift massive powers to the state and the corporations that control it (like Citizens United), much of which has happened completely unnoticed.
Your thoughts on CU are quite misguided. Long standing - corporations have had some semblance of freedom of speech. Here is one idea for you, if a S Corp can't have speech, why can a Union? Unions have always been the political lobby of America, funding most ads in many rural or industrial areas. So, if Microsoft can't put there money whey want it, neither can your local unions, non-profits, or any other organization.
What do you mean constitutionality of a future treaty? That would need to be determined at the time the treaty gets sent to the Senate or later the courts. The government can't enter into treaties that violate the constitution (or it can be nullified via the courts). People also forget, that the US (as a country) deals in destruction i.e. small arms, bombs, fighter planes and other 'death' technology. He can't and won't issue any type of executive order to give up the guns - he's not allowed (and if you did give up your guns, then you were a sheeple).
State power is good, that is what we are supposed to have. When you don't like it, we vote with our feet, when it violates the constitution - the courts strike it down.